Click the link below to read Daniel R. Novack’s article in the ABA’s Human Rights Magazine about freedom of speech and its corollary, freedom to read, which are under assault in America. Novack, an attorney for Penguin Random House, works with the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic on book ban challenges.
The New York State Supreme Court ruled that the NYPD must release body-cam and dash-cam footage and other records related to a 2023 incident when officers drove into oncoming traffic and hit and killed a man on a dirt bike, after the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic sued to obtain the records on behalf of a media client. NYPD claimed that all of the records were sealed under Criminal Procedure Law section 160.50 – which seals records after a prosecution is terminated in favor of the defendant – because officers arrested the dirt biker shortly before he died, and then the charges were dropped after his death.
In his June 3 ruling, Judge Lyle E. Frank held that the sealing law does not apply in this “novel and unique” situation, and even if it did, the law still would not seal the body-cam and dash-cam footage. He also ruled that NYPD failed to show that any other exemption under the Freedom of Information Law applied.
“This is an important victory for public accountability,” said Michael Linhorst, the Clinic’s Local Journalism Attorney, who argued the case. “Under the NYPD’s theory, officers who killed a person would be able to permanently seal all the records showing what happened as long as they arrested the person for something before they died. That’s far from what the law requires. FOIL guarantees that the public can oversee its government, and that means obtaining records that show what actions police take on the streets of New York.”
Samuel Williams was riding a dirtbike in May 2023 when he was struck head-on by an unmarked NYPD vehicle that had crossed into oncoming traffic. With Williams critically injured, officers handcuffed him – reportedly while his broken leg jutted from his pants – before attempting to render aid. He died in a hospital the next day.
A journalist for The City Report, Inc., publisher of The City Reporter, filed three FOIL requests seeking the body-worn camera footage, other recordings obtained by the NYPD, and the closing memo issued by the Department’s Force Investigation Division. The NYPD claimed the records were sealed under section 160.50, and the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic appealed.
During oral argument on June 2, Linhorst advanced three arguments. He said the sealing statute does not apply in these circumstances to allow the NYPD to hide the actions of its own officers that caused the death of a man who was not prosecuted. Some of the records sought have already been released by the Attorney General, and the facts surrounding his arrest and death have already been made public, so preventing their release would not shield the deceased from stigma. Second, even if the sealing statute applied, these are not the type of “official records” that would be sealed under the statute. The records sought are part of the normal course of NYPD business and are not records created for the purpose of prosecuting a case. Third, Linhorst said that none of FOIL’s other exemptions to public disclosure apply.
In his ruling, Judge Frank agreed that section 160.50 does not apply. He wrote that the body-worn camera and dashcam footage are not “official records” within the meaning of the statute, as they serve a purpose not inherently tied to any arrest or prosecution. Even if they were official records, the sealing statute only applies in carefully defined circumstances, and none were present here, despite the NYPD claiming that the facts fit into subsection (3)(i), which concerns situations where the prosecutor elects not to prosecute. “[T]here was no election that occurred in this instance, as it is undisputed that Mr. Williams was not prosecuted because he was deceased,” Judge Frank wrote. Similarly, the sealing statute could not be applied to the closing memo issued by the FID.
The court denied the NYPD’s additional claimed exemptions under Public Officers Law sections 87(2)(b) and 87(2)(e)(iv) as the arguments were first raised during litigation, not at the administrative level as required.
On June 8, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ Office of Special Investigation released its report on the death of Samuel Williams. OSI closed the matter, stating that the officers involved would not be prosecuted.
Read the client’s article for more background:
State AG Declines to Prosecute NYPD Officers Involved in Fatal Motorbike Crash, The City Reporter
In an interview with A&S Communications (Cornell University College of Arts & Sciences), Government, History and Robert S. Harrison Scholar Christina MacCorkle talks about her experience as a research assistant for the Cornell First Amendment Clinic.
Cornell First Amendment Clinic Advisory Board Member and Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Michael C. Dorf, authored “Support Local Journalism, Expand the Definition of Fraud, and Guard Against Boomerang Effects,” for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University’s blog Reconstructing Free Expression.
A May 1, 2026, Investigative Post article quoted Heather Murray, Associate Director of the First Amendment Clinic and Managing Attorney of the Local Journalism Project. Read the full article here:
“Erie County Legislature flunks transparency test” Investigative Post, by Geoff Kelly
The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic filed an amicus brief on April 30, 2026, in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, supporting a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court in a case addressing the scope of student-speech rights.
Two middle school students, represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (“FIRE”), sued their Michigan school district for forcing them to remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon,” a phrase widely understood as expressing a political viewpoint.
The District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that school administrators had “reasonably interpreted” the phrase as “profane” and the school’s action against the students did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), affirmed in October 2025, finding the euphemism conveyed a vulgar message that could be prohibited despite its political message.
The Clinic represents a group of First Amendment legal scholars—Clay Calvert, Erwin Chemerinsky, Roy Gutterman, Heather E. Murray, Daniel Novack, Joseph A. Tomain, Eugene Volokh, and Sonja R. West—in arguing that “the decision below impermissibly extends the authority of public-school officials to penalize students for expressing political viewpoints in the school environment that are neither sexually explicit or profane, nor disruptive to the learning process.” Specifically, the amicus brief argues that by deferring to the school’s interpretation of a popular political phrase as “profane,” the court improperly ignored the test established by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
In Tinker, the Court held that a school may only prohibit student expression in the school environment that communicates a political message when the expression creates a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.” The scholars’ brief asks the Court to grant certiorari to clarify that Fraser does not give school districts broad authority to censor political speech that is neither disruptive nor facially vulgar or profane.
Under the supervision of Adjunct Professor Michael Grygiel and Stanton Fellow Daniela del Rosario Wertheimer, Clinic students Lexie Kapilian ’26, Jason Blau ’27 and Luke Wyatt ’27 worked to develop and write the amici brief over the course of the spring 2026 semester.
According to Grygiel, “It is essential in today’s polarized climate that the free speech rights of public school students are protected when their expression does not result in a disruption to the school environment. Our students’ work underscored the basic First Amendment principle that when political viewpoints – regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum – are communicated without using sexualized expression or profanity, they are protected.”
An April 29, 2026, TribLive article, “Judge refuses to unseal DA’s search warrant on City of Pittsburgh,” by Paula Reed Ward, quotes Adam Tragone, Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic Local Journalism Attorney, who brought a motion to unseal a search warrant and accompanying affidavit served on the City of Pittsburgh, on behalf of Michael Wereschagin, an editor at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
A link to the full article, plus a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and a Tribune-Review editorial, are below:
“Judge refuses to unseal DA’s search warrant on City of Pittsburgh,” TribLive
“Editorial: If Zappala would just say it, why seal it?” Tribune-Review
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declined to hear an appeal, ending a hard-fought battle over Penn State University Board of Trustees’ records sought by the investigative news outlet Spotlight PA, represented by the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and co-counsel the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
“We are heartened that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to take this appeal from the Commonwealth Court’s well-reasoned decision,” Cornell First Amendment Clinic Local Journalism Fellow Kyle S. Clauss said. “Agencies cannot flout their obligations under the Right to Know Law by stashing public records on a third-party software platform. We look forward to our client receiving the records he requested nearly three years ago.”
In the fall of 2023, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records determined that requested records—documents the agencies’ secretaries received while serving on Penn State’s governing board—must be made public under the state Right to Know Law. Penn State and the Department of Education appealed, arguing that they were not subject to the RTKL and did not possess or control the records because the materials were stored on Diligent, a cloud-based file-sharing platform. The agencies further contended that disclosure of unredacted information could harm the university’s finances and employee retention.
In October 2025, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ordered the records to be released. The court rejected Penn State and the Department of Education’s arguments as “without merit,” warning that “[h]olding otherwise would perversely incentivize Commonwealth agencies, local agencies, and affected third parties like Penn State to utilize remote servers and/or cloud-based services, in order to ensure that they would no longer need to disclose what would otherwise constitute public records.” Allowing such a result, the court said, “would run contrary to the RTKL’s remedial purpose and the General Assembly’s intent that the RTKL be used as a vehicle for increasing and ensuring government transparency.”
In its April 7 decision refusing to hear the matter on appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ended a two-plus-year battle for the release of the records.
Devin Brader-Araje, a Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic student who argued the case at the Commonwealth Court, said “The Court’s decision affirms that the Right to Know Law will continue to serve the citizens of Pennsylvania and ensures that government officials remain accountable to their constituents. I am happy that Spotlight PA and the public will finally gain access to the documents the law entitles them to receive.”
For further background and coverage of the case, see:
High court rejects Penn State’s bid to keep trustee records hidden from public, Spotlight PA, by Spotlight PA Staff
Penn State loses fight to keep internal trustee documents hidden as Commonwealth Court sides with Spotlight PA, by Wyatt Massey of Spotlight PA State College
Court takes right step on transparency, Williamsport Sun-Gazette, Editorial
Clinic’s Local Journalism Project collaborates with Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Pittsburgh’s Public Source to provide pro bono legal help to local news outlets
PITTSBURGH – Adam Tragone has joined the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic as a Local Journalism Project Attorney in Western Pennsylvania, part of an innovative collaboration with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the nonprofit news site Pittsburgh’s Public Source. By offering pro bono legal representation, training and general legal support to news outlets and journalists, the initiative will help sustain local journalism in the Western Pennsylvania region.
“This collaboration gives reporters in Western Pennsylvania the legal backing they need to do their jobs,” said Marisa Kwiatkowski, director of journalism at Knight Foundation. “That support is foundational to a free press.”
Heather Murray, Associate Director of the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and Managing Attorney of its Local Journalism Project, said, “We launched the Local Journalism Project six years ago and have been partnering with Reporters Committee in Pennsylvania since then. We are very excited to expand our critical work on behalf of local journalists into Western PA with Adam joining us as our second Clinic satellite attorney in addition to our attorney based in NYC.”
Partnering with local law firms and non-profits, including the Reporters Committee, Tragone will provide a wide range of legal services to news outlets and independent journalists, including seeking access to public records and court proceedings and records, defending against subpoenas, conducting pre-publication review and providing libel defense. He will also provide a variety of operations and commercial-related legal support from contract drafting and review to advice on corporate organization, fiscal sponsorship, IP, employee issues, privacy and physical and data security. This position is generously funded by The Heinz Endowments and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Journalists and media outlets may reach out to Tragone for legal assistance at ajt273@cornell.edu.
The Reporters Committee’s Pennsylvania-based attorney, Paula Knudsen Burke, said, “We’re looking forward to working alongside Adam to ensure that journalists bringing news and information to communities across the Commonwealth have the legal support that’s too often needed to do their jobs, all at no cost. The collaboration between the Reporters Committee and the Cornell First Amendment Clinic has made a tangible difference for local journalism in Pennsylvania, and we’re excited to grow the capacity of this effort.”
The Reporters Committee is a leading pro bono legal services organization for journalists and newsrooms in the United States. They provide legal representation, amicus curiae support and other legal resources at no cost to protect First Amendment freedoms and the newsgathering rights of journalists across the country.
Halle Stockton, Executive Director and Editor-In-Chief of Public Source, said, “Adam will bring much needed legal services to journalists in Western Pennsylvania, helping to champion transparency and preserve community-driven storytelling.”
Pittsburgh’s Public Source is an independent nonprofit newsroom covering local government, community development, education, health and the environment, among other issues. Rooted in the communities it serves, its team produces fact-checked journalism that holds powerful institutions accountable to the people most affected by their decisions.
Tragone received his J.D. from Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh and his B.A. from Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. As an attorney with the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C., at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in Philadelphia, and at Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky in Pittsburgh, Tragone has represented clients in a variety of First Amendment and media law matters. Prior to attending law school, Tragone served as the managing editor of a weekly newspaper in Washington, D.C.
“I’m thrilled to join the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and collaborate with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Pittsburgh’s Public Source in defending and championing the First Amendment,” Tragone said. “As a newspaper editor and later in legal practice, I have always believed that a robust free press is crucial for democracy. In these challenging times, safeguarding the First Amendment is paramount.”
For more information, contact:
Adam J. Tragone, Local Journalism Project Attorney, Western Pennsylvania, Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, ajt273@cornell.edu
Heather E. Murray, Associate Director, Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, Managing Attorney, Local Journalism Project, hem58@cornell.edu
Sag Harbor Village released redacted bodycam video of Justine Timberlake’s 2024 arrest in response to a Freedom of Information Law request by The Express News Group, publisher of Sag Harbor Express, a client of The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic’s Local Journalism Project.
“Police bodycam footage exists largely for public accountability — it shouldn’t be kept hidden, especially in a case like this, where there’s no legitimate reason for it to be secret.”
– Cornell Clinic Attorney Michael Linhorst
A temporary restraining order imposed by New York State County Court Judge and Acting Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti on March 5 had barred the release. The order prevented Sag Harbor Village, the Sag Harbor Village Police Department, and Sag Harbor Village Police Chief Robert Drake from disseminating the video footage, which had been slated for release in response to Freedom of Information Law requests.
“We’re glad to see that the Freedom of Information Law finally worked as it’s supposed to and these public records were made public,” Cornell First Amendment Clinic Local Journalism Attorney Michael Linhorst, who assisted with the FOIL appeal, said. “Police bodycam footage exists largely for public accountability — it shouldn’t be kept hidden, especially in a case like this, where there’s no legitimate reason for it to be secret.”
A redacted video was released on March 21 after attorneys for Timberlake and Sag Harbor Village reached an agreement.
Timberlake was arrested on June 18, 2024, and charged with driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, but pleaded guilty on September 13, 2024, in Sag Harbor Village Justice Court to a lesser charge of driving while ability impaired by alcohol, a traffic infraction.
The day after the arrest, The Express News Group filed its first Freedom of Information request for the bodycam and dashcam video footage and audio recordings related to the pursuit, investigation, and arrest of Timberlake, which was denied. Police withheld the video on the grounds that its release would interfere with a pending judicial proceeding.
A second FOIL request after the guilty plea was entered was denied on the grounds that a protective order from Sag Harbor Village Justice Court prohibited its release. The Cornell Clinic appealed the denials each time. After the village’s counsel agreed to begin releasing the footage, an attorney for Timberlake successfully argued in village court that the protective order applied to bar the footage’s release. In doing so, the village court rejected the Clinic’s argument that the protective order did not extend to the police department, which was not a party to the order, and that the order did not nullify the public’s rights under FOIL.
For more background information on the FOIL requests and the released footage, see:
21 Months Later, Timberlake Arrest Video Is Released, The Sag Harbor Express
Watch: Justin Timberlake’s June 2024 Arrest in Sag Harbor Village, The Sag Harbor Express